OPINION As a Reviewer, Each Review is Yours, and Sometimes It Should Be Everyone’s

Lenny Teytelman are known. The purpose of this type of policy is to protect reviewers from retribution from authors and to ensure the Scientists periodically ask on social media whether they may review is honest and complete. post their review of a published paper, considering the review Interestingly, one study suggests this anonymity actually process was confi dential and anonymous.1–4 Is it necessary makes no difference for the quality and may in fact make to ask the paper’s authors for permission to post the review? the reviews worse.7 Reviews themselves aside, open review Should the journal give a green light? Frequently, publishers has the potential to improve the publishing process and the and editors don’t even know the answers or have clear progress of science.8 This is one reason why many scientists, policies. However, copyright law is straightforward in this case: including me, sign their reviews, and a number of journals the reviewer is the owner of the review. Unless the copyright encourage or even require open non-anonymous reviews is explicitly reassigned to the journal, the reviewer owns the (e.g., EMBO Press, F1000Research, The BMJ, Nature content of the review and, therefore, has the right to share it.5 Communications, PeerJ, eLife, and Plant Cell).9–15 In September 2015, the Committee on Publication Again, after a paper’s publication, anonymity of the Ethics (COPE) online forum had a discussion around “Who submission and review process is no longer as important ‘owns’ peer reviews?” with much informative commentary.6 since the review has been considered and the editorial Certainly, many will hesitate to publish their review because decision was made. The review can be posted openly on of the understanding it was an anonymous and confi dential PubMed Commons or anonymously on PubPeer, and many process. And even when copyright supports the legal journal websites make it possible to share the review as a publishing of a peer review, is sharing this review a breach comment directly on the article itself, whether the paper was of expectations, norms, and responsibilities? reviewed for that journal or another one. Confi dentiality The Ethics of Publishing a Review There are a number of reasons why confi dential peer review The biggest barrier to disclosing peer reviews after publication is standard practice. First of all, scientists do not want to be may have nothing to do with the legality, confi dentiality, and scooped on their work; if a competing group discovers the anonymity issues. Is it a show of disrespect to the colleagues submission, they can try to rush their publication. Second, who authored the original papers to publish your review? In disclosing the existence of the submission to a particular the journals that practice open review by default, authors journal could harm its future publication chances if that and reviewers have a clear understanding. But what are journal rejects the manuscript. the ethical considerations around sharing your review if the At the same time, the signifi cance of confi dentiality is original authors don’t expect you to do so? diminishing as the popularity of preprints grows. Moreover, Here, I repost my previous editorial, slightly revised, on after a paper is published, the confi dentiality of the this topic.16 manuscript itself is a moot point. Want to Be Ethical in Science? Speak Up. Anonymity What is the etiquette for disclosing an anonymous review The vast majority of research journals practice single-blind you wrote? Because all of us have the natural sense that an peer review. That is, the identity of the reviewers is hidden anonymous review is supposed to stay anonymous, this is to readers and to authors, while the names of the authors not a trivial question. Even I, an advocate of non-anonymous open peer review, see the problem of going public with something that was written in private at the request of an LENNY TEYTELMAN is the founder of www.protocols.io. editor, with the understanding from the author and the journal that the review is both confi dential and anonymous.

SCIENC E EDITOR • WINTER 2017 • VO L 39 • NO 2 71 OPINION

CONTINUED

I tracked an excellent and extensive discussion of this on we have to encourage open and critical post-publication Twitter,17 I listened, and I have been thinking hard about it discussion. In discussions of this, I often see very different for a few hours on an airplane. And the more I think about opinions on the “good” and “bad” ways to have post- this, the more I believe it is deeply wrong to keep silent publication discussion: Alerting the editor and trying to about a paper you reviewed and think is fl awed. Yes, we publish the rebuttal in the original journal is okay in some have the responsibility to the author of the paper to be civil. cases, but elsewhere it’s not. Publishing elsewhere is okay if But that author–reviewer contract stands in direct confl ict it’s a journal, but not okay if it isn’t peer reviewed. Publishing with our responsibility to the scientifi c community. a critique on a blog is okay, but disclosing your review on Suppose I got the stimulus-triggered acquisition of PubPeer is out of line. pluripotency (STAP) paper to review. The STAP technique was These lines seem entirely arbitrary to me. As an example, a major publication that could not be reproduced by anyone my paper was ripped to shreds by another scientist- and was retracted.18 Suppose I saw through it and outlined colleague in a publication. No one had reached out to the fundamental fl aws. Then the journal editor decided to me. I found the critique accidentally through my PubChase publish it anyway. Can I make my review public? By keeping recommendations.22 I responded on PubMed Commons silent, I am honoring a single author and disrespecting a and on PubPeer.23,24 At least my response went to the world of researchers. By keeping silent, I am letting students corresponding author via PubPeer. and postdoctoral researchers waste months or years chasing There is no rhyme or reason to personal opinions of smoke. I have a responsibility to the countless scientists what is and isn’t ethical for post-publication disputes. Post- following up on the published work. I have a responsibility publication commenting is certainly not traditional, but 30 to science and society. I think my duties to science, society, years ago, there existed no web, no blogs, PubPeer, Twitter, and the world of researchers override my oath to the author. and so forth. New traditions have been enabled today by Now we come to the question of the appropriate means technology. By asking people not to criticize, however, we of responding. Many whose work is questioned fi re back undermine science. We hurt scientists. We hurt ourselves. with, “This is unprecedented! Why didn’t you contact me We must realize the criticisms are not about us—they are fi rst? Why didn’t you write to the editor? Where is your about the science. We have to learn to criticize each other’s civility? You didn’t follow the etiquette!” work in a fi rm but civil manner. That can be done any way you But if regular publishing is hard, publishing a rebuttal is like, whether through Twitter, the original journal, PubPeer, an agonizing ordeal.19 In a pair of online polls, I asked how your blog, PubMed Commons, or other ways. While some often scientists get rejected on any given paper, compared are going to be mean and uncivil no matter where, I hope to rejections for a paper challenging previously published most can be respectful and focus on the science. Regardless, results. The frequency of getting three or more rejections I think science is best served by scientists embracing post- jumps from 14% to 37% (Fig.).20,21 By arguing for the via- publication critique. editor/journal way, we are placing an extraordinary burden Update: While reviewing this article prior to on the scientist raising the question. publication, Jonathan Schultz, Deputy Editor of Science Yes, we should be civil and focus on the science rather Editor, asked the following astute question: than personal motivations. We can’t accuse authors of misconduct unless we have clear proof of it. We don’t need “What is the benefi t of acknowledging that the criticism to be aggressive or rude. But we have to be honest and posted on a published article originated as a *confi dential*

Figure. Results from an informal Twitter poll by the author, @lteytelman.

72 SCIENC E EDITO R • WINTER 2017 • VO L 39 • NO 2 OPINION

CONTINUED review? And why not simply reword the criticism to be a true author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals post-publication review of the published article (which is fi ne)? operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open, 2015, 5, e008707, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707. 8. Bastian H. Weighing up anonymity and openness in publication peer I can only think of two reasons to announce that you were review. Absolutely Maybe, May 13, 2015. blogs.plos.org/absolutely- a reviewer and to repost the original review as is. One, as maybe/2015/05/13/weighing-up-anonymity-and-openness-in- some type of admonishment of the journal for publishing publication-peer-review/. the article (in spite of a recommendation by that same 9. embopress.org/transparent-process reviewer that the manuscript not be published). Two, to 10. f1000research.com/about 11. www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/peer-review-process draw attention to a dubious change made by the authors 12. www.nature.com/news/open-peer-review-finds-more-takers- after the manuscript was reviewed. Even in these cases, I 1.20969?WT,mc_id=GPL_NatureNews think it’s best to at fi rst go through a journal’s offi cial process 13. peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/#open-peer-review and for a reviewer to only post these unedited reviews in the 14. elifesciences.org/elife-news/decision-letters-and-author-responses- cases where the journal has failed to act. are-now-published-all-elife-papers 15. www.plantcell.org/content/28/10/2343.full 16. Teytelman L. Want to be ethical in science? Speak up. Spectroscope, LT: I agree. What is important is sharing your review to help May 31, 2015. thespectroscope.com/read/want-to-be-ethical-in- other scientists; how and where you do it is not nearly as critical. science-speak-up-by-lenny-teytelman-321. 17. twitter.com/surt_lab/status/604740409642786817 Links and References 18. Johnson CY. Coauthor of retracted stem cell papers commits 1. twitter.com/BioMickWatson/status/604751357703274496 suicide. Boston Globe, August 5, 2014. www.bostonglobe.com/news/ 2. twitter.com/Protohedgehog/status/604781524551135232 science/2014/08/05/author-retracted-stem-cell-papers-commits- 3. twitter.com/SDawsonBerlin/status/821308678410211328 suicide/PjUPxOBh3k2qnGPIzQMwHL/story.html. 4. twitter.com/biochembelle/status/593045028638973952 19. Teytelman L. How PLOS ONE helps science get closer to the self- 5. fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/copyright-research/ownership-and- correcting ideal. March 13, 2017. www.protocols.io/groups/protocolsio/ transfers/#is_there_a_difference_between_an_author_and_a_ news/how-plos-one-helps-science-get-closer-to-the-selfcorrecting. copyright_owner 20. twitter.com/lteytelman/status/719597796681068544 6. publicationethics.org/files/u7141/Notes%20from%20FORUM%20 21. twitter.com/lteytelman/status/840045073328832512 discussion%20topic_Who%20owns%20peer%20review_fi nal.pdf 22. www.pubchase.com/ 7. Kowalczuk MK, F Dudbridge, S Nanda, SL Harriman, J Patel, and 23. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25164749#cm25164749_6520 EC Moylan. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by 24. pubpeer.com/publications/67A83944F4199620C531991D6D92A6

SCIENC E EDITOR • WINTER 2017 • VO L 39 • NO 2 7 3